<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_16_2055214</id>
	<title>62\% of Sun's Stockholders Vote For Oracle Deal</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1247735340000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Moon Workstation writes <i>"In an special meeting held at Santa Clara, CA, <a href="http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/pr/2009-07/sunflash.20090716.1.xml">62\% of Sun's stockholders voted for the acquisition</a> by Oracle. As a result of this Sun's stock will be taken from the stock market as of Friday. The acquisition is still <a href="http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/press/020174">waiting for approval</a> by the US Department of Justice and anti-trust offices in other countries. The planned acquisition is source for rumors and speculation about the future of different Sun products, like <a href="http://developers.slashdot.org/story/09/07/13/1847254/Mass-Speculation-Suggests-Oracle-May-Kill-OpenSolaris">OpenSolaris</a>, <a href="http://developers.slashdot.org/story/09/06/16/1244240/Sun-Kills-Rock-CPU-Says-NYT-Report">CPUs</a> and others."</i> (<a href="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2009/04/is\_there\_a\_futu.php">MySQL among them</a>.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Moon Workstation writes " In an special meeting held at Santa Clara , CA , 62 \ % of Sun 's stockholders voted for the acquisition by Oracle .
As a result of this Sun 's stock will be taken from the stock market as of Friday .
The acquisition is still waiting for approval by the US Department of Justice and anti-trust offices in other countries .
The planned acquisition is source for rumors and speculation about the future of different Sun products , like OpenSolaris , CPUs and others .
" ( MySQL among them .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moon Workstation writes "In an special meeting held at Santa Clara, CA, 62\% of Sun's stockholders voted for the acquisition by Oracle.
As a result of this Sun's stock will be taken from the stock market as of Friday.
The acquisition is still waiting for approval by the US Department of Justice and anti-trust offices in other countries.
The planned acquisition is source for rumors and speculation about the future of different Sun products, like OpenSolaris, CPUs and others.
" (MySQL among them.
)</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725459</id>
	<title>FP dOLL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247756160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">during which I nneds OS. Now BSDI very sick and its intentions and of OpenBSD. How has steadily Downward spiral. In Vary for different may weel remain</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>during which I nneds OS .
Now BSDI very sick and its intentions and of OpenBSD .
How has steadily Downward spiral .
In Vary for different may weel remain [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>during which I nneds OS.
Now BSDI very sick and its intentions and of OpenBSD.
How has steadily Downward spiral.
In Vary for different may weel remain [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723085</id>
	<title>fuc4.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247740320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And coders about bylaws may disturb otHer Towel under the for a moment 4nd Than a fraction Are She had taken</htmltext>
<tokenext>And coders about bylaws may disturb otHer Towel under the for a moment 4nd Than a fraction Are She had taken</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And coders about bylaws may disturb otHer Towel under the for a moment 4nd Than a fraction Are She had taken</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725511</id>
	<title>Re:Pedantry</title>
	<author>curunir</author>
	<datestamp>1247756700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, and that doesn't even account for all the shares that are owned by funds where the fund managers act as a proxy for the actual shareholders. I own quite a bit of stock in my 401k and yet I've never voted for anything. So it's very likely that some of the actual voters weren't even shareholders.</p><p>However unlikely, it's technically possible for 62\% of the stock to vote for the deal without a single shareholder doing so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , and that does n't even account for all the shares that are owned by funds where the fund managers act as a proxy for the actual shareholders .
I own quite a bit of stock in my 401k and yet I 've never voted for anything .
So it 's very likely that some of the actual voters were n't even shareholders.However unlikely , it 's technically possible for 62 \ % of the stock to vote for the deal without a single shareholder doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, and that doesn't even account for all the shares that are owned by funds where the fund managers act as a proxy for the actual shareholders.
I own quite a bit of stock in my 401k and yet I've never voted for anything.
So it's very likely that some of the actual voters weren't even shareholders.However unlikely, it's technically possible for 62\% of the stock to vote for the deal without a single shareholder doing so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724593</id>
	<title>Re:Sun Microsystems: What are your theories?</title>
	<author>davecb</author>
	<datestamp>1247748300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many many small processors without a fast interconnect will give good database performance if and only if all the operations are wonderfully parallelizable, and don't require coordination.

</p><p>This is somewhat hard to arrange(;))
A bank, for example, always debits one account when it credits another, so in
the general case ties up two machines for every operation. If there is another transaction outstanding against either of these accounts, you've tied up three.
Think about how well this scales in a busy bank branch and you can guess that the dominating cost is the coordination.
This is true for most thing you *use*
transactions for, pretty much by definition.

</p><p>That works best on a machine with a
really fast locking regieme, which in turn you need a backplane like a Cray.
That's what you get when you by a Sun or  IBM machine: hardware to make database transactions go fast.

</p><p>--dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many many small processors without a fast interconnect will give good database performance if and only if all the operations are wonderfully parallelizable , and do n't require coordination .
This is somewhat hard to arrange ( ; ) ) A bank , for example , always debits one account when it credits another , so in the general case ties up two machines for every operation .
If there is another transaction outstanding against either of these accounts , you 've tied up three .
Think about how well this scales in a busy bank branch and you can guess that the dominating cost is the coordination .
This is true for most thing you * use * transactions for , pretty much by definition .
That works best on a machine with a really fast locking regieme , which in turn you need a backplane like a Cray .
That 's what you get when you by a Sun or IBM machine : hardware to make database transactions go fast .
--dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many many small processors without a fast interconnect will give good database performance if and only if all the operations are wonderfully parallelizable, and don't require coordination.
This is somewhat hard to arrange(;))
A bank, for example, always debits one account when it credits another, so in
the general case ties up two machines for every operation.
If there is another transaction outstanding against either of these accounts, you've tied up three.
Think about how well this scales in a busy bank branch and you can guess that the dominating cost is the coordination.
This is true for most thing you *use*
transactions for, pretty much by definition.
That works best on a machine with a
really fast locking regieme, which in turn you need a backplane like a Cray.
That's what you get when you by a Sun or  IBM machine: hardware to make database transactions go fast.
--dave</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725693</id>
	<title>Re:Release ZFS as GPL</title>
	<author>swordgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1247760240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um...why?</p><p>Oh yeah--because obsessive Linuxites are unwilling to accept anything other than the GPL as Richard Stallman's One True Path.</p><p>The CDDL works for the rest of the universe. Get over yourselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um...why ? Oh yeah--because obsessive Linuxites are unwilling to accept anything other than the GPL as Richard Stallman 's One True Path.The CDDL works for the rest of the universe .
Get over yourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um...why?Oh yeah--because obsessive Linuxites are unwilling to accept anything other than the GPL as Richard Stallman's One True Path.The CDDL works for the rest of the universe.
Get over yourselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723973</id>
	<title>Re:Sun Microsystems: What are your theories?</title>
	<author>iggymanz</author>
	<datestamp>1247744520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>actually there are  robust data center grade x86 servers, I make my living migrating Sun customers to them, and they're usually not running Solaris either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>actually there are robust data center grade x86 servers , I make my living migrating Sun customers to them , and they 're usually not running Solaris either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>actually there are  robust data center grade x86 servers, I make my living migrating Sun customers to them, and they're usually not running Solaris either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724381</id>
	<title>Re:Release ZFS as GPL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247746740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You all know you want it.</p></div><p>No one else has.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You all know you want it.No one else has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You all know you want it.No one else has.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28728425</id>
	<title>Oracle and Berkeley DB</title>
	<author>SgtChaireBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1247839260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Oracle and MySQL are two different markets, anyway.</p></div><p>It always bothers me when people make this comment, because it assumes things always will be that way.  Oracle and mysql are different markets, but does it always have to be?  Well, now that oracle owns mysql, yes.  But if it wasn't so, mysql could have evolved into an oracle competitor with time.  And that is so with a lot of products and markets.  They are in two different markets now, and oracle might not kill it off, but we know that oracle is unlikely to develop it to rival their proprietary product, whereas before, any outcome of mysql's future would have been possilbe.</p></div><p>
Oracle and Berkeley DB were in different markets, too.  Look what happened.  </p><p>
Work on Berkeley DB may still be going on, but the tool is far less visible in the community.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle and MySQL are two different markets , anyway.It always bothers me when people make this comment , because it assumes things always will be that way .
Oracle and mysql are different markets , but does it always have to be ?
Well , now that oracle owns mysql , yes .
But if it was n't so , mysql could have evolved into an oracle competitor with time .
And that is so with a lot of products and markets .
They are in two different markets now , and oracle might not kill it off , but we know that oracle is unlikely to develop it to rival their proprietary product , whereas before , any outcome of mysql 's future would have been possilbe .
Oracle and Berkeley DB were in different markets , too .
Look what happened .
Work on Berkeley DB may still be going on , but the tool is far less visible in the community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle and MySQL are two different markets, anyway.It always bothers me when people make this comment, because it assumes things always will be that way.
Oracle and mysql are different markets, but does it always have to be?
Well, now that oracle owns mysql, yes.
But if it wasn't so, mysql could have evolved into an oracle competitor with time.
And that is so with a lot of products and markets.
They are in two different markets now, and oracle might not kill it off, but we know that oracle is unlikely to develop it to rival their proprietary product, whereas before, any outcome of mysql's future would have been possilbe.
Oracle and Berkeley DB were in different markets, too.
Look what happened.
Work on Berkeley DB may still be going on, but the tool is far less visible in the community.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723141</id>
	<title>Sun bought by Oracle?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247740560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sun bought by Oracle?  That isn't too bright.  Did someone predict this?   Didn't Monty Burns already block this?</p><p>Thanks...I'll be here all week...try the veal</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sun bought by Oracle ?
That is n't too bright .
Did someone predict this ?
Did n't Monty Burns already block this ? Thanks...I 'll be here all week...try the veal</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sun bought by Oracle?
That isn't too bright.
Did someone predict this?
Didn't Monty Burns already block this?Thanks...I'll be here all week...try the veal</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28732039</id>
	<title>Re:Sun Microsystems: What are your theories?</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1247854800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My theory is that the highly reliable hardware Sun Microsystems sells is no longer popular because it is far cheaper to use consumer-grade hardware with software that is fault-tolerant.</p></div><p>That's not a theory, that's the accepted industry paradigm. Even Sun has accepted it, at least on paper. Which is why Sun now sells hardware with commodity processors.</p><p>Which nobody seems to know about. That's because Sun still has a lot of people (too many of them in sales and marketing) that are in total denial about the end of the Sparc era.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My theory is that the highly reliable hardware Sun Microsystems sells is no longer popular because it is far cheaper to use consumer-grade hardware with software that is fault-tolerant.That 's not a theory , that 's the accepted industry paradigm .
Even Sun has accepted it , at least on paper .
Which is why Sun now sells hardware with commodity processors.Which nobody seems to know about .
That 's because Sun still has a lot of people ( too many of them in sales and marketing ) that are in total denial about the end of the Sparc era .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My theory is that the highly reliable hardware Sun Microsystems sells is no longer popular because it is far cheaper to use consumer-grade hardware with software that is fault-tolerant.That's not a theory, that's the accepted industry paradigm.
Even Sun has accepted it, at least on paper.
Which is why Sun now sells hardware with commodity processors.Which nobody seems to know about.
That's because Sun still has a lot of people (too many of them in sales and marketing) that are in total denial about the end of the Sparc era.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724119</id>
	<title>Re:Pedantry</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1247745120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is likely that shareholders owning 62\% of Sun stock voted for the Oracle deal. This is slightly different than 62\% of shareholders (for instance, if 1 person owned 50\% of the company, another owned 12\%, and 15,000 people owned the rest, 0.013\% of the shareholders would have 62\% of the vote).</p></div><p> <b>Slightly</b> different? The difference is huge. The number of shareholders means squat. The number of voting shares means everything.</p><p>Usually, it's the institutional shareholders that decide these deals, not the individual ones, unless you are Buffet or Soros.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is likely that shareholders owning 62 \ % of Sun stock voted for the Oracle deal .
This is slightly different than 62 \ % of shareholders ( for instance , if 1 person owned 50 \ % of the company , another owned 12 \ % , and 15,000 people owned the rest , 0.013 \ % of the shareholders would have 62 \ % of the vote ) .
Slightly different ?
The difference is huge .
The number of shareholders means squat .
The number of voting shares means everything.Usually , it 's the institutional shareholders that decide these deals , not the individual ones , unless you are Buffet or Soros .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is likely that shareholders owning 62\% of Sun stock voted for the Oracle deal.
This is slightly different than 62\% of shareholders (for instance, if 1 person owned 50\% of the company, another owned 12\%, and 15,000 people owned the rest, 0.013\% of the shareholders would have 62\% of the vote).
Slightly different?
The difference is huge.
The number of shareholders means squat.
The number of voting shares means everything.Usually, it's the institutional shareholders that decide these deals, not the individual ones, unless you are Buffet or Soros.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723799</id>
	<title>Sun's stockholders?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247743620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn! They have bought the Sun already!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn !
They have bought the Sun already !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn!
They have bought the Sun already!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722797</id>
	<title>MySQL won't die</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247739120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oracle won't kill MySQL.  MySQL's accessibility hurts Microsoft's database division too much.  Oracle and MySQL are two different markets, anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle wo n't kill MySQL .
MySQL 's accessibility hurts Microsoft 's database division too much .
Oracle and MySQL are two different markets , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle won't kill MySQL.
MySQL's accessibility hurts Microsoft's database division too much.
Oracle and MySQL are two different markets, anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722801</id>
	<title>Homie-G Thug Culture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247739180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yay, a nigger whose highest aspiration in life is to become a wannabe thug with a shitty attitude and a chip on his shoulder.  And if you think there might be something wrong with that, like maybe one shouldn't aim so low, then obviously you must be a racist.  Wonderful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay , a nigger whose highest aspiration in life is to become a wannabe thug with a shitty attitude and a chip on his shoulder .
And if you think there might be something wrong with that , like maybe one should n't aim so low , then obviously you must be a racist .
Wonderful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay, a nigger whose highest aspiration in life is to become a wannabe thug with a shitty attitude and a chip on his shoulder.
And if you think there might be something wrong with that, like maybe one shouldn't aim so low, then obviously you must be a racist.
Wonderful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722973</id>
	<title>Pedantry</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1247739900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is likely that shareholders owning 62\% of Sun stock voted for the Oracle deal. This is slightly different than 62\% of shareholders (for instance, if 1 person owned 50\% of the company, another owned 12\%, and 15,000 people owned the rest, 0.013\% of the shareholders would have 62\% of the vote).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is likely that shareholders owning 62 \ % of Sun stock voted for the Oracle deal .
This is slightly different than 62 \ % of shareholders ( for instance , if 1 person owned 50 \ % of the company , another owned 12 \ % , and 15,000 people owned the rest , 0.013 \ % of the shareholders would have 62 \ % of the vote ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is likely that shareholders owning 62\% of Sun stock voted for the Oracle deal.
This is slightly different than 62\% of shareholders (for instance, if 1 person owned 50\% of the company, another owned 12\%, and 15,000 people owned the rest, 0.013\% of the shareholders would have 62\% of the vote).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723047</id>
	<title>Release ZFS as GPL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247740200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You all know you want it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You all know you want it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You all know you want it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723023</id>
	<title>GO MONTY!</title>
	<author>Foofoobar</author>
	<datestamp>1247740080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Monty is the man who will keep MySQL alive regardless of Oracle. Oracle can funble and bumble it all they want. In fact, you can expect MySQL development to slow to a crawl over the next 3 years as Oracles tries to figure out what to do and to integrate it. In the meantime, Monty AB is going to become the new defacto standard for MySQL replacing Oracles version in the open source community. Distros will start picking up Monty AB and as a result, more installs of Monty AB will be used than that Oracles MySQL in 5 years do to licensing issues or lack of development.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Monty is the man who will keep MySQL alive regardless of Oracle .
Oracle can funble and bumble it all they want .
In fact , you can expect MySQL development to slow to a crawl over the next 3 years as Oracles tries to figure out what to do and to integrate it .
In the meantime , Monty AB is going to become the new defacto standard for MySQL replacing Oracles version in the open source community .
Distros will start picking up Monty AB and as a result , more installs of Monty AB will be used than that Oracles MySQL in 5 years do to licensing issues or lack of development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Monty is the man who will keep MySQL alive regardless of Oracle.
Oracle can funble and bumble it all they want.
In fact, you can expect MySQL development to slow to a crawl over the next 3 years as Oracles tries to figure out what to do and to integrate it.
In the meantime, Monty AB is going to become the new defacto standard for MySQL replacing Oracles version in the open source community.
Distros will start picking up Monty AB and as a result, more installs of Monty AB will be used than that Oracles MySQL in 5 years do to licensing issues or lack of development.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28726791</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL won't die</title>
	<author>iron-kurton</author>
	<datestamp>1247862240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pardon my ignorance, isn't MySQL an Open Source project? I thought we could just fork it and continue working on it -- a pipe dream, I know, but still theoretically possible?? In fact, I thought there was already a fork based on MySQL a while back?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pardon my ignorance , is n't MySQL an Open Source project ?
I thought we could just fork it and continue working on it -- a pipe dream , I know , but still theoretically possible ? ?
In fact , I thought there was already a fork based on MySQL a while back ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pardon my ignorance, isn't MySQL an Open Source project?
I thought we could just fork it and continue working on it -- a pipe dream, I know, but still theoretically possible??
In fact, I thought there was already a fork based on MySQL a while back?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723873</id>
	<title>No 62\% of stockholders did not vote for this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247743980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stockholders, representing 62\% of the voting shares, approved this this merger.</p><p>Lets use voter for democracy please. If it isn't yet a good way of using the term, it should be.</p><p>But, good English dictates that it was not 62\% of the voters. There could for example be two 2 people holding 57\% of the shares, and 1,234,984 people holding another 5\% of the shares. Lets be accurate about what kind of decision was made by whom and how.</p><p>BTW there could have been and may be another couple of billion dollars of shares, that have no vote.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stockholders , representing 62 \ % of the voting shares , approved this this merger.Lets use voter for democracy please .
If it is n't yet a good way of using the term , it should be.But , good English dictates that it was not 62 \ % of the voters .
There could for example be two 2 people holding 57 \ % of the shares , and 1,234,984 people holding another 5 \ % of the shares .
Lets be accurate about what kind of decision was made by whom and how.BTW there could have been and may be another couple of billion dollars of shares , that have no vote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stockholders, representing 62\% of the voting shares, approved this this merger.Lets use voter for democracy please.
If it isn't yet a good way of using the term, it should be.But, good English dictates that it was not 62\% of the voters.
There could for example be two 2 people holding 57\% of the shares, and 1,234,984 people holding another 5\% of the shares.
Lets be accurate about what kind of decision was made by whom and how.BTW there could have been and may be another couple of billion dollars of shares, that have no vote.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724077</id>
	<title>Re:GO MONTY!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247745000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So now instead of MySQL/PHP stack we'll have the Monty/Python stack?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So now instead of MySQL/PHP stack we 'll have the Monty/Python stack ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now instead of MySQL/PHP stack we'll have the Monty/Python stack?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725785</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL won't die</title>
	<author>InlawBiker</author>
	<datestamp>1247761080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember there's still Postgresql.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember there 's still Postgresql .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember there's still Postgresql.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722781</id>
	<title>First!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247739120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723773</id>
	<title>about time</title>
	<author>quisxt</author>
	<datestamp>1247743440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great, now Oracle can slice off the good bits and push the rest of the corpse into the bay where it can slump among the rusted JavaStations and corpses of former SGI employees as a reminder[1] that the chewbacca defense is not an effective business strategy.
<br> <br>
1.  <a href="http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/sunstrategy2x.gif" title="guardian.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/sunstrategy2x.gif</a> [guardian.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great , now Oracle can slice off the good bits and push the rest of the corpse into the bay where it can slump among the rusted JavaStations and corpses of former SGI employees as a reminder [ 1 ] that the chewbacca defense is not an effective business strategy .
1. http : //blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/sunstrategy2x.gif [ guardian.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great, now Oracle can slice off the good bits and push the rest of the corpse into the bay where it can slump among the rusted JavaStations and corpses of former SGI employees as a reminder[1] that the chewbacca defense is not an effective business strategy.
1.  http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/sunstrategy2x.gif [guardian.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722935</id>
	<title>Re:wait a minute What about Oracle's share</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247739720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>holders?</p><p>They are probably hoping to the holy oracle that they don't get<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... SUNburned....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>holders ? They are probably hoping to the holy oracle that they do n't get ... SUNburned... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>holders?They are probably hoping to the holy oracle that they don't get ... SUNburned....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28732257</id>
	<title>Re:Pedantry</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1247855760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not pedantic, an important distinction. In fact, I suspect that a majority of the individual stockholders are against the merger. Many of small stockholders will have paid $20 or more for each share, and would be in denial about the fact that it's never getting up there again. So of course they balk at being forced to sell to Oracle for $9.50. How else to account for 38\% of the shares voting against a purchase at a nice premium over market?</p><p>Another important distinction:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>As a result of this Sun's stock will be taken from the stock market as of Friday.</p></div><p>Not true. The stock doesn't get delisted until the sale is final. What the submitter is probably thinking of is the removal of Sun from the NASDAQ 100 index. That removes some prestige from the stock, but doesn't remove it from the market.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not pedantic , an important distinction .
In fact , I suspect that a majority of the individual stockholders are against the merger .
Many of small stockholders will have paid $ 20 or more for each share , and would be in denial about the fact that it 's never getting up there again .
So of course they balk at being forced to sell to Oracle for $ 9.50 .
How else to account for 38 \ % of the shares voting against a purchase at a nice premium over market ? Another important distinction : As a result of this Sun 's stock will be taken from the stock market as of Friday.Not true .
The stock does n't get delisted until the sale is final .
What the submitter is probably thinking of is the removal of Sun from the NASDAQ 100 index .
That removes some prestige from the stock , but does n't remove it from the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not pedantic, an important distinction.
In fact, I suspect that a majority of the individual stockholders are against the merger.
Many of small stockholders will have paid $20 or more for each share, and would be in denial about the fact that it's never getting up there again.
So of course they balk at being forced to sell to Oracle for $9.50.
How else to account for 38\% of the shares voting against a purchase at a nice premium over market?Another important distinction:As a result of this Sun's stock will be taken from the stock market as of Friday.Not true.
The stock doesn't get delisted until the sale is final.
What the submitter is probably thinking of is the removal of Sun from the NASDAQ 100 index.
That removes some prestige from the stock, but doesn't remove it from the market.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723013</id>
	<title>PostgreSQL anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247740080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"...I think that the need for an independent true Open Source entity for MySQL is even bigger than ever before."

Umm, PostgreSQL, anyone? Try working with it after having used MySQL or Oracle. It's just years ahead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...I think that the need for an independent true Open Source entity for MySQL is even bigger than ever before .
" Umm , PostgreSQL , anyone ?
Try working with it after having used MySQL or Oracle .
It 's just years ahead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...I think that the need for an independent true Open Source entity for MySQL is even bigger than ever before.
"

Umm, PostgreSQL, anyone?
Try working with it after having used MySQL or Oracle.
It's just years ahead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723983</id>
	<title>Re:Sun Microsystems: What are your theories?</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1247744580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why has Sun Microsystems not done particularly well in the last few years</p></div><p>Um, just as a guess, because they didn't invest in hardware research and gave away all their software?  "Services are where it's at" say companies who can no longer compete technologically.  Weren't the Sun E-series supers acquired from Cray Research?</p><p>Note to all in this business:  if you decide against investing in R&amp;D, don't be surprised if you're left with nothing but "services" in your portfolio and diminishing margins.  Someone I respect called this "the race to the bottom".  Use your brains and compete!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why has Sun Microsystems not done particularly well in the last few yearsUm , just as a guess , because they did n't invest in hardware research and gave away all their software ?
" Services are where it 's at " say companies who can no longer compete technologically .
Were n't the Sun E-series supers acquired from Cray Research ? Note to all in this business : if you decide against investing in R&amp;D , do n't be surprised if you 're left with nothing but " services " in your portfolio and diminishing margins .
Someone I respect called this " the race to the bottom " .
Use your brains and compete !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why has Sun Microsystems not done particularly well in the last few yearsUm, just as a guess, because they didn't invest in hardware research and gave away all their software?
"Services are where it's at" say companies who can no longer compete technologically.
Weren't the Sun E-series supers acquired from Cray Research?Note to all in this business:  if you decide against investing in R&amp;D, don't be surprised if you're left with nothing but "services" in your portfolio and diminishing margins.
Someone I respect called this "the race to the bottom".
Use your brains and compete!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722845</id>
	<title>Andy Grove was wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247739300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only the assholes survive.  At least it looks to me that way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only the assholes survive .
At least it looks to me that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only the assholes survive.
At least it looks to me that way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28726805</id>
	<title>Re:38\% of Sun shareholders are fools?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247862420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No;</p><p>It's a bit of a complex game of chicken - if it gets 'barely' rejected, the offer price often will be raised; especially if the takeover seems like a good fit (ie it will be long-term profitable for the aquirer.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No ; It 's a bit of a complex game of chicken - if it gets 'barely ' rejected , the offer price often will be raised ; especially if the takeover seems like a good fit ( ie it will be long-term profitable for the aquirer .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No;It's a bit of a complex game of chicken - if it gets 'barely' rejected, the offer price often will be raised; especially if the takeover seems like a good fit (ie it will be long-term profitable for the aquirer.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722793</id>
	<title>2nd pist!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247739120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>anal sex won't do anything but make your dick stink</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>anal sex wo n't do anything but make your dick stink</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anal sex won't do anything but make your dick stink</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28727929</id>
	<title>Re:Sun Microsystems: What are your theories?</title>
	<author>tonyAG</author>
	<datestamp>1247835600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I worked for Sun for 5 years and it is my opinion that the true cause for Sun's Demise is the Management. Over the last 8 years or so they forgot why they where a successful company and be came a large, unresponsive Corp.
<br> <br>
I believe that they made the cardinal sin of thinking that they could dictate to their users rather than listening to what the customers wanted.
(For example see Scott McNealy's comment about people not having privacy so get over it....)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked for Sun for 5 years and it is my opinion that the true cause for Sun 's Demise is the Management .
Over the last 8 years or so they forgot why they where a successful company and be came a large , unresponsive Corp . I believe that they made the cardinal sin of thinking that they could dictate to their users rather than listening to what the customers wanted .
( For example see Scott McNealy 's comment about people not having privacy so get over it.... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked for Sun for 5 years and it is my opinion that the true cause for Sun's Demise is the Management.
Over the last 8 years or so they forgot why they where a successful company and be came a large, unresponsive Corp.
 
I believe that they made the cardinal sin of thinking that they could dictate to their users rather than listening to what the customers wanted.
(For example see Scott McNealy's comment about people not having privacy so get over it....)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725075</id>
	<title>Re:Release ZFS as GPL</title>
	<author>ChunderDownunder</author>
	<datestamp>1247752320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, we'll see. Oracle has Btrfs for Linux. It's possible they may keep pushing that for databases running on Linux BUT keep ZFS as a value added solution to get people hooked on Solaris.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , we 'll see .
Oracle has Btrfs for Linux .
It 's possible they may keep pushing that for databases running on Linux BUT keep ZFS as a value added solution to get people hooked on Solaris .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, we'll see.
Oracle has Btrfs for Linux.
It's possible they may keep pushing that for databases running on Linux BUT keep ZFS as a value added solution to get people hooked on Solaris.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28728313</id>
	<title>Re:Pedantry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247838660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea and these voting stockholders do they really care about Sun products and Sun's customers?  Hell no.  They only care about lining their pockets.  Do these asshats even know what Sun really makes or has done?  I doubt it.</p><p>As a Sun customer I feel sold out.  I liked doing business with Sun.  I NEVER wanted to do business with Oracle and still don't.  This goes to show that these days with any publicly traded company the <i>stockholder</i> is the REAL customer and me the buyer of the products is just a liquid asset to be bought and sold by rich assholes.</p><p>Why is a company judged by its <i>Market</i> value and not by the value of its products, services and its customer base?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea and these voting stockholders do they really care about Sun products and Sun 's customers ?
Hell no .
They only care about lining their pockets .
Do these asshats even know what Sun really makes or has done ?
I doubt it.As a Sun customer I feel sold out .
I liked doing business with Sun .
I NEVER wanted to do business with Oracle and still do n't .
This goes to show that these days with any publicly traded company the stockholder is the REAL customer and me the buyer of the products is just a liquid asset to be bought and sold by rich assholes.Why is a company judged by its Market value and not by the value of its products , services and its customer base ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea and these voting stockholders do they really care about Sun products and Sun's customers?
Hell no.
They only care about lining their pockets.
Do these asshats even know what Sun really makes or has done?
I doubt it.As a Sun customer I feel sold out.
I liked doing business with Sun.
I NEVER wanted to do business with Oracle and still don't.
This goes to show that these days with any publicly traded company the stockholder is the REAL customer and me the buyer of the products is just a liquid asset to be bought and sold by rich assholes.Why is a company judged by its Market value and not by the value of its products, services and its customer base?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725507</id>
	<title>It's not MySQL Stupid!</title>
	<author>greetings programs</author>
	<datestamp>1247756640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think MySQL is in danger, it is relatively easy to fork and has an extensive installed base. What I think will suffer more is OpenOffice and OpenSolaris.

Sun is the primary sponsor of the OpenOffice project. I really don't think Oracle has any incentive to invest on it even if its just to piss MS a little. I think that in order to survive, OpenOffice(.org) will need to adopt an strategy similar to that of the Mozilla foundation and get some big sponsors like i.e. IBM.

OpenSolaris would be missed by only a few, and some important technologies like dtrace and zfs can't be integrated easily on the linux kernel because of the CDDL. I think Open Solaris has failed to take off as Sun has intended and will be indeed killed because of that. I don't think a fork would be feasible or succesful because of the lack of interest from the general community. I hope that at least they release the code in a GPL friendly license so it can be assimilated onto Linux</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think MySQL is in danger , it is relatively easy to fork and has an extensive installed base .
What I think will suffer more is OpenOffice and OpenSolaris .
Sun is the primary sponsor of the OpenOffice project .
I really do n't think Oracle has any incentive to invest on it even if its just to piss MS a little .
I think that in order to survive , OpenOffice ( .org ) will need to adopt an strategy similar to that of the Mozilla foundation and get some big sponsors like i.e .
IBM . OpenSolaris would be missed by only a few , and some important technologies like dtrace and zfs ca n't be integrated easily on the linux kernel because of the CDDL .
I think Open Solaris has failed to take off as Sun has intended and will be indeed killed because of that .
I do n't think a fork would be feasible or succesful because of the lack of interest from the general community .
I hope that at least they release the code in a GPL friendly license so it can be assimilated onto Linux</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think MySQL is in danger, it is relatively easy to fork and has an extensive installed base.
What I think will suffer more is OpenOffice and OpenSolaris.
Sun is the primary sponsor of the OpenOffice project.
I really don't think Oracle has any incentive to invest on it even if its just to piss MS a little.
I think that in order to survive, OpenOffice(.org) will need to adopt an strategy similar to that of the Mozilla foundation and get some big sponsors like i.e.
IBM.

OpenSolaris would be missed by only a few, and some important technologies like dtrace and zfs can't be integrated easily on the linux kernel because of the CDDL.
I think Open Solaris has failed to take off as Sun has intended and will be indeed killed because of that.
I don't think a fork would be feasible or succesful because of the lack of interest from the general community.
I hope that at least they release the code in a GPL friendly license so it can be assimilated onto Linux</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725189</id>
	<title>Re:Sun Microsystems: What are your theories?</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1247753340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always thought the point of Oracle buying Sun was so they could offer a full stack. After all before only IBM could offer the full stack from top to bottom from a single vendor. Now Oracle has their DB+Solaris+Sun hardware all under their control, which they can then optimize for DB throughput and if the customer has any problems there is only one vendor to call. Never underestimate how valuable not having to deal with multiple vendors saying "its not our fault" is to a corporation.</p><p>

 The software I would figure would be most likely to hit the chopping block (besides OO.o which seems to be a mess with lots of forking going on) is unbreakable Linux. After all they don't control Linux, but with Solaris they can now have the OS designed to integrate perfectly with their DB and they can control the direction of development. It always seemed to me that Oracle was a better fit for Sun than IBM, which would have had more overlap. But while you are correct that there are many like Google that prefer to "throw more boxes at it" there seems to still be a market for IBM "big iron" so I'm sure Oracle will still have plenty of customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought the point of Oracle buying Sun was so they could offer a full stack .
After all before only IBM could offer the full stack from top to bottom from a single vendor .
Now Oracle has their DB + Solaris + Sun hardware all under their control , which they can then optimize for DB throughput and if the customer has any problems there is only one vendor to call .
Never underestimate how valuable not having to deal with multiple vendors saying " its not our fault " is to a corporation .
The software I would figure would be most likely to hit the chopping block ( besides OO.o which seems to be a mess with lots of forking going on ) is unbreakable Linux .
After all they do n't control Linux , but with Solaris they can now have the OS designed to integrate perfectly with their DB and they can control the direction of development .
It always seemed to me that Oracle was a better fit for Sun than IBM , which would have had more overlap .
But while you are correct that there are many like Google that prefer to " throw more boxes at it " there seems to still be a market for IBM " big iron " so I 'm sure Oracle will still have plenty of customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought the point of Oracle buying Sun was so they could offer a full stack.
After all before only IBM could offer the full stack from top to bottom from a single vendor.
Now Oracle has their DB+Solaris+Sun hardware all under their control, which they can then optimize for DB throughput and if the customer has any problems there is only one vendor to call.
Never underestimate how valuable not having to deal with multiple vendors saying "its not our fault" is to a corporation.
The software I would figure would be most likely to hit the chopping block (besides OO.o which seems to be a mess with lots of forking going on) is unbreakable Linux.
After all they don't control Linux, but with Solaris they can now have the OS designed to integrate perfectly with their DB and they can control the direction of development.
It always seemed to me that Oracle was a better fit for Sun than IBM, which would have had more overlap.
But while you are correct that there are many like Google that prefer to "throw more boxes at it" there seems to still be a market for IBM "big iron" so I'm sure Oracle will still have plenty of customers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724187</id>
	<title>Grammar failure</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1247745360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"an special deal"? Is it not a requirement for anyone moderately fluent in English to even GLANCE at a post before it's green lighted? WTF?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" an special deal " ?
Is it not a requirement for anyone moderately fluent in English to even GLANCE at a post before it 's green lighted ?
WTF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"an special deal"?
Is it not a requirement for anyone moderately fluent in English to even GLANCE at a post before it's green lighted?
WTF?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723357</id>
	<title>62 percent of voting shares. not 62 percent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247741640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>62 percent of the voting shares. this does not mean 62 percent of shareholders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>62 percent of the voting shares .
this does not mean 62 percent of shareholders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>62 percent of the voting shares.
this does not mean 62 percent of shareholders.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723333</id>
	<title>Oracle and Sun are perfect for each other</title>
	<author>linebackn</author>
	<datestamp>1247741520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally I think Oracle and Sun are perfect for each other business wise. Two companies that have some good products, often don't even realize the potential of what they have, have no real vision other than getting big contracts signed, and couldn't market their way out of a wet paper bag.</p><p>Now that there is even a hint that something might change, I halfway expect managers to be running around like chickens with their heads cut off spewing crap like "Solaris is going to be desupported!" or "Sparc servers are 'going away' soon". (I went through this with Oracle Forms when Oracle dropped the Win32 client ARRAGGG!)</p><p>It would just be nice if they could make their intentions 100\% clear on what specifically they plan to do with Sun's products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I think Oracle and Sun are perfect for each other business wise .
Two companies that have some good products , often do n't even realize the potential of what they have , have no real vision other than getting big contracts signed , and could n't market their way out of a wet paper bag.Now that there is even a hint that something might change , I halfway expect managers to be running around like chickens with their heads cut off spewing crap like " Solaris is going to be desupported !
" or " Sparc servers are 'going away ' soon " .
( I went through this with Oracle Forms when Oracle dropped the Win32 client ARRAGGG !
) It would just be nice if they could make their intentions 100 \ % clear on what specifically they plan to do with Sun 's products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I think Oracle and Sun are perfect for each other business wise.
Two companies that have some good products, often don't even realize the potential of what they have, have no real vision other than getting big contracts signed, and couldn't market their way out of a wet paper bag.Now that there is even a hint that something might change, I halfway expect managers to be running around like chickens with their heads cut off spewing crap like "Solaris is going to be desupported!
" or "Sparc servers are 'going away' soon".
(I went through this with Oracle Forms when Oracle dropped the Win32 client ARRAGGG!
)It would just be nice if they could make their intentions 100\% clear on what specifically they plan to do with Sun's products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722789</id>
	<title>Fucking Finally</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247739120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sun was acting like a damned parrot for years</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sun was acting like a damned parrot for years</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sun was acting like a damned parrot for years</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28726143</id>
	<title>Just get it over already.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247765640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is one sideshow I wish I didn't have a front seat to; it was hard enough dealing with the re-branding every 2 months, not being one of the elite (try being a contractor supporting folks that 'wrote' what your supporting, especially when they didn't) lip service to a eat our own dog-food policy and an internal culture that expects weekly heroic acts; add to that the company trying very hard to sell itself for nearly the last year, being in offer status for half of that and having absolutely no forward momentum because no one seems to know what the 'Oracle' has in mind so why bother, well really, I would like to see this end so we can all see where the chips fall; unfortunately for me I believe I will be on the losing side of this deal, Oracle seems to avoid contract/outsource like the plague and I fall squarely in that bucket.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one sideshow I wish I did n't have a front seat to ; it was hard enough dealing with the re-branding every 2 months , not being one of the elite ( try being a contractor supporting folks that 'wrote ' what your supporting , especially when they did n't ) lip service to a eat our own dog-food policy and an internal culture that expects weekly heroic acts ; add to that the company trying very hard to sell itself for nearly the last year , being in offer status for half of that and having absolutely no forward momentum because no one seems to know what the 'Oracle ' has in mind so why bother , well really , I would like to see this end so we can all see where the chips fall ; unfortunately for me I believe I will be on the losing side of this deal , Oracle seems to avoid contract/outsource like the plague and I fall squarely in that bucket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one sideshow I wish I didn't have a front seat to; it was hard enough dealing with the re-branding every 2 months, not being one of the elite (try being a contractor supporting folks that 'wrote' what your supporting, especially when they didn't) lip service to a eat our own dog-food policy and an internal culture that expects weekly heroic acts; add to that the company trying very hard to sell itself for nearly the last year, being in offer status for half of that and having absolutely no forward momentum because no one seems to know what the 'Oracle' has in mind so why bother, well really, I would like to see this end so we can all see where the chips fall; unfortunately for me I believe I will be on the losing side of this deal, Oracle seems to avoid contract/outsource like the plague and I fall squarely in that bucket.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843</id>
	<title>Sun Microsystems: What are your theories?</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1247739300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why has Sun Microsystems not done particularly well in the last few years? Why are they finding it necessary to <a href="http://www.sun.com/third-party/global/oracle/index.jsp" title="sun.com">sell themselves to Oracle</a> [sun.com]? My theory is that the highly reliable hardware Sun Microsystems sells is no longer popular because it is far cheaper to use consumer-grade hardware with software that is fault-tolerant. The excellent 2008 book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Planet-Google-Companys-Audacious-Everything/dp/141654691X" title="amazon.com">Planet Google</a> [amazon.com] describes Google's experiences on page 54: <i>"For about $278,000 in 2003, </i>[Google]<i> could assemble a rack with 176 microprocessors, 176 gigabytes of memory, and 7 terabytes of disk space. This compared favorably to a $758,000 server sold by the manufacturer of a well-known brand, which had only eight multiprocessors, one-third the memory, and about the same amount of disk space."</i> </p><p>Why would Oracle buy Sun? Possibly because there are difficulties in making Oracle database products work with the new fault-tolerant technology. For example, fault-tolerant technology may require performing all database modifications on 4 computers at the same time, and Oracle may not want to sell 4 licenses for one application at the same price as the 1 license used with the more expensive high-reliability equipment.</p><p>What are your ideas about the sale of Sun, and Oracle's interest? There are many people with far more knowledge about this than I have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why has Sun Microsystems not done particularly well in the last few years ?
Why are they finding it necessary to sell themselves to Oracle [ sun.com ] ?
My theory is that the highly reliable hardware Sun Microsystems sells is no longer popular because it is far cheaper to use consumer-grade hardware with software that is fault-tolerant .
The excellent 2008 book Planet Google [ amazon.com ] describes Google 's experiences on page 54 : " For about $ 278,000 in 2003 , [ Google ] could assemble a rack with 176 microprocessors , 176 gigabytes of memory , and 7 terabytes of disk space .
This compared favorably to a $ 758,000 server sold by the manufacturer of a well-known brand , which had only eight multiprocessors , one-third the memory , and about the same amount of disk space .
" Why would Oracle buy Sun ?
Possibly because there are difficulties in making Oracle database products work with the new fault-tolerant technology .
For example , fault-tolerant technology may require performing all database modifications on 4 computers at the same time , and Oracle may not want to sell 4 licenses for one application at the same price as the 1 license used with the more expensive high-reliability equipment.What are your ideas about the sale of Sun , and Oracle 's interest ?
There are many people with far more knowledge about this than I have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why has Sun Microsystems not done particularly well in the last few years?
Why are they finding it necessary to sell themselves to Oracle [sun.com]?
My theory is that the highly reliable hardware Sun Microsystems sells is no longer popular because it is far cheaper to use consumer-grade hardware with software that is fault-tolerant.
The excellent 2008 book Planet Google [amazon.com] describes Google's experiences on page 54: "For about $278,000 in 2003, [Google] could assemble a rack with 176 microprocessors, 176 gigabytes of memory, and 7 terabytes of disk space.
This compared favorably to a $758,000 server sold by the manufacturer of a well-known brand, which had only eight multiprocessors, one-third the memory, and about the same amount of disk space.
" Why would Oracle buy Sun?
Possibly because there are difficulties in making Oracle database products work with the new fault-tolerant technology.
For example, fault-tolerant technology may require performing all database modifications on 4 computers at the same time, and Oracle may not want to sell 4 licenses for one application at the same price as the 1 license used with the more expensive high-reliability equipment.What are your ideas about the sale of Sun, and Oracle's interest?
There are many people with far more knowledge about this than I have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723323</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1247741460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has been obvious that Sun was a zombie since the dot com bubble burst.  That their corpse was going to be bought by someone was equally obvious.  So of the available suitors was Oracle the best the Sun shareholders could hope for?  Probably.  Which explains they vote.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has been obvious that Sun was a zombie since the dot com bubble burst .
That their corpse was going to be bought by someone was equally obvious .
So of the available suitors was Oracle the best the Sun shareholders could hope for ?
Probably. Which explains they vote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has been obvious that Sun was a zombie since the dot com bubble burst.
That their corpse was going to be bought by someone was equally obvious.
So of the available suitors was Oracle the best the Sun shareholders could hope for?
Probably.  Which explains they vote.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724017</id>
	<title>Re:Andy Grove was wrong</title>
	<author>iggymanz</author>
	<datestamp>1247744700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sun were the arrogant assholes. They rode out their name in the dot-com heyday not really innovating.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sun were the arrogant assholes .
They rode out their name in the dot-com heyday not really innovating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sun were the arrogant assholes.
They rode out their name in the dot-com heyday not really innovating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725593</id>
	<title>Killing OpenSolaris and Java is a suicide...</title>
	<author>hotfireball</author>
	<datestamp>1247758560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guys, you think Oracle, who wants to be next IBM is gonna kill (or seriously hurt) an OS, which is a main platform for their flagship product: a database? An idiot would think so, but not in reality.</p><p>Just think about it:</p><ol>
<li>Solaris was nearly dead. Real spin is OpenSolaris. Very dramatic spin over 4 years.</li><li>StarOffice was/is nearly dead. Real spin is OpenOffice.org and so huge that you probably won't even remember StarOffice at all.</li><li>Mozilla, one the most ridiculous browser was ever made -- dead. Real spin is Firefox: one of the best now.</li><li>Java was/still-partly a shit and simply lobbied by enterprises, constantly losing ground since 2002. The real spin is OpenJDK and there now is a hope.</li></ol><p>Now think some more, if you like:</p><ul>
<li>Still in deep Beta, BTRFS for Linux needs to go long-long road to catch up where ZFS is nowadays. Moreover, BTRFS is using RAID layer in Linux kernel, thus is very poor at scalability for really big stuff. In contrast, ZFS is way-way more mature, no problems with scaling and already in a real production. Linux is using ZFS only through FUSE (such a slow userland layer!)</li><li>OpenSolaris has technologies that does <i>not</i> even exists in Linux as analogy. E.g.: COMSTAR, Crossbow etc.</li><li>Java works best on top of Solaris. And Java is <b>the only</b> technology that can compete against<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET stuff.</li></ul><p>OK, now what Oracle have to compete with:</p><ul>
<li>IBM with their OS stack, their own Java (which is better by certification, significantly faster and allowed to use at critical areas, e.g. nuclear stations) and their DB2.</li><li>Microsoft with their Windows thing,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET that is silly sweet to average developers. E.g.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET allows lots of silly things, which "average Joe" would really love and don't care to do it right way, where Java is quite strict. Indeed, why to struggle at office evening, trying to get things right, if I can go to pub with girls, after all?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</li><li>Sybase is also serious player and Oracle knows that JDeveloper is actually a piece of shit if you compare to Sybase dev tools.</li></ul><p>Make your own conclusions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guys , you think Oracle , who wants to be next IBM is gon na kill ( or seriously hurt ) an OS , which is a main platform for their flagship product : a database ?
An idiot would think so , but not in reality.Just think about it : Solaris was nearly dead .
Real spin is OpenSolaris .
Very dramatic spin over 4 years.StarOffice was/is nearly dead .
Real spin is OpenOffice.org and so huge that you probably wo n't even remember StarOffice at all.Mozilla , one the most ridiculous browser was ever made -- dead .
Real spin is Firefox : one of the best now.Java was/still-partly a shit and simply lobbied by enterprises , constantly losing ground since 2002 .
The real spin is OpenJDK and there now is a hope.Now think some more , if you like : Still in deep Beta , BTRFS for Linux needs to go long-long road to catch up where ZFS is nowadays .
Moreover , BTRFS is using RAID layer in Linux kernel , thus is very poor at scalability for really big stuff .
In contrast , ZFS is way-way more mature , no problems with scaling and already in a real production .
Linux is using ZFS only through FUSE ( such a slow userland layer !
) OpenSolaris has technologies that does not even exists in Linux as analogy .
E.g. : COMSTAR , Crossbow etc.Java works best on top of Solaris .
And Java is the only technology that can compete against .NET stuff.OK , now what Oracle have to compete with : IBM with their OS stack , their own Java ( which is better by certification , significantly faster and allowed to use at critical areas , e.g .
nuclear stations ) and their DB2.Microsoft with their Windows thing , .NET that is silly sweet to average developers .
E.g. .NET allows lots of silly things , which " average Joe " would really love and do n't care to do it right way , where Java is quite strict .
Indeed , why to struggle at office evening , trying to get things right , if I can go to pub with girls , after all ?
: - ) Sybase is also serious player and Oracle knows that JDeveloper is actually a piece of shit if you compare to Sybase dev tools.Make your own conclusions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guys, you think Oracle, who wants to be next IBM is gonna kill (or seriously hurt) an OS, which is a main platform for their flagship product: a database?
An idiot would think so, but not in reality.Just think about it:
Solaris was nearly dead.
Real spin is OpenSolaris.
Very dramatic spin over 4 years.StarOffice was/is nearly dead.
Real spin is OpenOffice.org and so huge that you probably won't even remember StarOffice at all.Mozilla, one the most ridiculous browser was ever made -- dead.
Real spin is Firefox: one of the best now.Java was/still-partly a shit and simply lobbied by enterprises, constantly losing ground since 2002.
The real spin is OpenJDK and there now is a hope.Now think some more, if you like:
Still in deep Beta, BTRFS for Linux needs to go long-long road to catch up where ZFS is nowadays.
Moreover, BTRFS is using RAID layer in Linux kernel, thus is very poor at scalability for really big stuff.
In contrast, ZFS is way-way more mature, no problems with scaling and already in a real production.
Linux is using ZFS only through FUSE (such a slow userland layer!
)OpenSolaris has technologies that does not even exists in Linux as analogy.
E.g.: COMSTAR, Crossbow etc.Java works best on top of Solaris.
And Java is the only technology that can compete against .NET stuff.OK, now what Oracle have to compete with:
IBM with their OS stack, their own Java (which is better by certification, significantly faster and allowed to use at critical areas, e.g.
nuclear stations) and their DB2.Microsoft with their Windows thing, .NET that is silly sweet to average developers.
E.g. .NET allows lots of silly things, which "average Joe" would really love and don't care to do it right way, where Java is quite strict.
Indeed, why to struggle at office evening, trying to get things right, if I can go to pub with girls, after all?
:-)Sybase is also serious player and Oracle knows that JDeveloper is actually a piece of shit if you compare to Sybase dev tools.Make your own conclusions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28727351</id>
	<title>Re:Sun Microsystems: What are your theories?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247828160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>My theory is that the highly reliable hardware Sun Microsystems sells is no longer popular because it is far cheaper to use consumer-grade hardware with software that is fault-tolerant</b></p><p>Check out the numbers comparing, say x86-based servers from Dell and HP to Sun's T2-based lines. Dell and HP's offerings will end up costing considerably more in terms of price/performance. Besides that, consider that it takes 2 quad-core Xeons to match a single T2 in terms or core count, and 8 quad-core Xeons to match a single T2 in terms of threads (2 threads per core, vs 8 threads per core). You're looking at 32 CPUs and 128 Cores to match a quad-socket Sun server. The cost differential actually favours Sun, on the upfront hardware costs, without factoring in the power consumption, cooling and storage (as in physical space) costs.</p><p>The differential is quite amusing in certain situations (say for an MySQL cluster), where you're limited to 8 cores per node (for some reason, MySQL just doesn't scale well past 8 cores, you're actually looking at considerably better throughput at 64 threads on 8 cores than you are on 16 cores, at the expense of a slightly lower peak at 32 threads) in such configurations, mot only will the x86 equivalent to a quad-socket T2 rig cost considerablty more, but the difference in upfront hardware costs pays for an Oracle EE licence, with interest (conveniently enough, the EE license covers 4 sockets)!</p><p>Sun hasn't done too well because they have brilliant products but a shitty sales and marketing team, and pony-tailed douchebags in charge who make phenomenally stupid decisions, like blowing $1 billion on MySQL. Even so, I'd hardly qualify $10 billion in annual revenues (~$2.5b quarterly) as doing poorly. Granted they're nowhere near as large as HP or IBM (both in the $40+ billion range), but even with their shitty sales people, it's not as if they're having trouble selling units.</p><p>Why would Oracle buy Sun? For one, at $7.5 billion, they got Sun for a steal. For two, Oracle is in the database in a box business, they already had the database and middleware, now they have their own OS and hardware. For three, Oracle has always and continues to run best on Solaris, which in turn, runs best on Sparc. For four, Oracle is heavily invested in Java, and now they own it. For 5, Oracle is also heavily invested in J2ee, they pretty well own that stack now, as well.</p><p>The question shouldn't be "why would Oracle buy Sun?" but rather, "Why wouldn't Oracle buy Sun, and what's taken them so long?". With Larry's talent for profit, Oracle's marketing and sales teams, and Sun's product line, there's no reason not to expect SOracle to take on IBM and HP head on now.</p><p>Also, why would you run Oracle on 4 computers when you can get better throughput (remember Sparc is designed for throughput and vertical scalability, x86 is not) on one?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My theory is that the highly reliable hardware Sun Microsystems sells is no longer popular because it is far cheaper to use consumer-grade hardware with software that is fault-tolerantCheck out the numbers comparing , say x86-based servers from Dell and HP to Sun 's T2-based lines .
Dell and HP 's offerings will end up costing considerably more in terms of price/performance .
Besides that , consider that it takes 2 quad-core Xeons to match a single T2 in terms or core count , and 8 quad-core Xeons to match a single T2 in terms of threads ( 2 threads per core , vs 8 threads per core ) .
You 're looking at 32 CPUs and 128 Cores to match a quad-socket Sun server .
The cost differential actually favours Sun , on the upfront hardware costs , without factoring in the power consumption , cooling and storage ( as in physical space ) costs.The differential is quite amusing in certain situations ( say for an MySQL cluster ) , where you 're limited to 8 cores per node ( for some reason , MySQL just does n't scale well past 8 cores , you 're actually looking at considerably better throughput at 64 threads on 8 cores than you are on 16 cores , at the expense of a slightly lower peak at 32 threads ) in such configurations , mot only will the x86 equivalent to a quad-socket T2 rig cost considerablty more , but the difference in upfront hardware costs pays for an Oracle EE licence , with interest ( conveniently enough , the EE license covers 4 sockets ) ! Sun has n't done too well because they have brilliant products but a shitty sales and marketing team , and pony-tailed douchebags in charge who make phenomenally stupid decisions , like blowing $ 1 billion on MySQL .
Even so , I 'd hardly qualify $ 10 billion in annual revenues ( ~ $ 2.5b quarterly ) as doing poorly .
Granted they 're nowhere near as large as HP or IBM ( both in the $ 40 + billion range ) , but even with their shitty sales people , it 's not as if they 're having trouble selling units.Why would Oracle buy Sun ?
For one , at $ 7.5 billion , they got Sun for a steal .
For two , Oracle is in the database in a box business , they already had the database and middleware , now they have their own OS and hardware .
For three , Oracle has always and continues to run best on Solaris , which in turn , runs best on Sparc .
For four , Oracle is heavily invested in Java , and now they own it .
For 5 , Oracle is also heavily invested in J2ee , they pretty well own that stack now , as well.The question should n't be " why would Oracle buy Sun ?
" but rather , " Why would n't Oracle buy Sun , and what 's taken them so long ? " .
With Larry 's talent for profit , Oracle 's marketing and sales teams , and Sun 's product line , there 's no reason not to expect SOracle to take on IBM and HP head on now.Also , why would you run Oracle on 4 computers when you can get better throughput ( remember Sparc is designed for throughput and vertical scalability , x86 is not ) on one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My theory is that the highly reliable hardware Sun Microsystems sells is no longer popular because it is far cheaper to use consumer-grade hardware with software that is fault-tolerantCheck out the numbers comparing, say x86-based servers from Dell and HP to Sun's T2-based lines.
Dell and HP's offerings will end up costing considerably more in terms of price/performance.
Besides that, consider that it takes 2 quad-core Xeons to match a single T2 in terms or core count, and 8 quad-core Xeons to match a single T2 in terms of threads (2 threads per core, vs 8 threads per core).
You're looking at 32 CPUs and 128 Cores to match a quad-socket Sun server.
The cost differential actually favours Sun, on the upfront hardware costs, without factoring in the power consumption, cooling and storage (as in physical space) costs.The differential is quite amusing in certain situations (say for an MySQL cluster), where you're limited to 8 cores per node (for some reason, MySQL just doesn't scale well past 8 cores, you're actually looking at considerably better throughput at 64 threads on 8 cores than you are on 16 cores, at the expense of a slightly lower peak at 32 threads) in such configurations, mot only will the x86 equivalent to a quad-socket T2 rig cost considerablty more, but the difference in upfront hardware costs pays for an Oracle EE licence, with interest (conveniently enough, the EE license covers 4 sockets)!Sun hasn't done too well because they have brilliant products but a shitty sales and marketing team, and pony-tailed douchebags in charge who make phenomenally stupid decisions, like blowing $1 billion on MySQL.
Even so, I'd hardly qualify $10 billion in annual revenues (~$2.5b quarterly) as doing poorly.
Granted they're nowhere near as large as HP or IBM (both in the $40+ billion range), but even with their shitty sales people, it's not as if they're having trouble selling units.Why would Oracle buy Sun?
For one, at $7.5 billion, they got Sun for a steal.
For two, Oracle is in the database in a box business, they already had the database and middleware, now they have their own OS and hardware.
For three, Oracle has always and continues to run best on Solaris, which in turn, runs best on Sparc.
For four, Oracle is heavily invested in Java, and now they own it.
For 5, Oracle is also heavily invested in J2ee, they pretty well own that stack now, as well.The question shouldn't be "why would Oracle buy Sun?
" but rather, "Why wouldn't Oracle buy Sun, and what's taken them so long?".
With Larry's talent for profit, Oracle's marketing and sales teams, and Sun's product line, there's no reason not to expect SOracle to take on IBM and HP head on now.Also, why would you run Oracle on 4 computers when you can get better throughput (remember Sparc is designed for throughput and vertical scalability, x86 is not) on one?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722791</id>
	<title>MySQL...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247739120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ByeSQL!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ByeSQL !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ByeSQL!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723375</id>
	<title>Re:Release ZFS as GPL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247741700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, yes we do.</p><p>In fact everybody wants it, even and especially those of you who think you don't or don't know that you do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , yes we do.In fact everybody wants it , even and especially those of you who think you do n't or do n't know that you do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, yes we do.In fact everybody wants it, even and especially those of you who think you don't or don't know that you do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723701</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL won't die</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247743140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oracle and MySQL are two different markets, anyway.</p></div><p>It always bothers me when people make this comment, because it assumes things always will be that way.  Oracle and mysql are different markets, but does it always have to be?  Well, now that oracle owns mysql, yes.  But if it wasn't so, mysql could have evolved into an oracle competitor with time.  And that is so with a lot of products and markets.  They are in two different markets now, and oracle might not kill it off, but we know that oracle is unlikely to develop it to rival their proprietary product, whereas before, any outcome of mysql's future would have been possilbe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle and MySQL are two different markets , anyway.It always bothers me when people make this comment , because it assumes things always will be that way .
Oracle and mysql are different markets , but does it always have to be ?
Well , now that oracle owns mysql , yes .
But if it was n't so , mysql could have evolved into an oracle competitor with time .
And that is so with a lot of products and markets .
They are in two different markets now , and oracle might not kill it off , but we know that oracle is unlikely to develop it to rival their proprietary product , whereas before , any outcome of mysql 's future would have been possilbe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle and MySQL are two different markets, anyway.It always bothers me when people make this comment, because it assumes things always will be that way.
Oracle and mysql are different markets, but does it always have to be?
Well, now that oracle owns mysql, yes.
But if it wasn't so, mysql could have evolved into an oracle competitor with time.
And that is so with a lot of products and markets.
They are in two different markets now, and oracle might not kill it off, but we know that oracle is unlikely to develop it to rival their proprietary product, whereas before, any outcome of mysql's future would have been possilbe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725959</id>
	<title>Re:Sun Microsystems: What are your theories?</title>
	<author>dranga</author>
	<datestamp>1247763060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm just guessing, but my thought is that oracle wants to try and have more control of the whole application stack... and if they buy Sun, they wind up with 2 stacks:

For low end customers, they could offer MySQL databases running on Linux on cheaper x86 based systems, and oracle apps running on Linux.

For larger/high end customers, they can offer Oracle databases running on large Solaris/SPARC servers.

It looks like one way they could get more customers from more types of businesses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just guessing , but my thought is that oracle wants to try and have more control of the whole application stack... and if they buy Sun , they wind up with 2 stacks : For low end customers , they could offer MySQL databases running on Linux on cheaper x86 based systems , and oracle apps running on Linux .
For larger/high end customers , they can offer Oracle databases running on large Solaris/SPARC servers .
It looks like one way they could get more customers from more types of businesses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just guessing, but my thought is that oracle wants to try and have more control of the whole application stack... and if they buy Sun, they wind up with 2 stacks:

For low end customers, they could offer MySQL databases running on Linux on cheaper x86 based systems, and oracle apps running on Linux.
For larger/high end customers, they can offer Oracle databases running on large Solaris/SPARC servers.
It looks like one way they could get more customers from more types of businesses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725837</id>
	<title>Re:Sun Microsystems: What are your theories?</title>
	<author>Envy Life</author>
	<datestamp>1247761740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oracle hasn't had much of an issue with fault tolerance since it's OPS (Oracle Parallel Server) days, or its newer RAC technology (Real Application Clusters).
<br> <br>
Oracle's current licensing is basically per-processor based, regardless of whether you have one server with 4 processors or 4 servers with 1 processor (other restrictions apply, etc).  In the past Oracle has also had no problems implementing licensing like UPU (Universal Power Unit) so licenses were based upon fabricated value representing the "power" of the hardware used... e.g., higher for fault tolerant SMP machines and lesser for x86 machiens.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle has n't had much of an issue with fault tolerance since it 's OPS ( Oracle Parallel Server ) days , or its newer RAC technology ( Real Application Clusters ) .
Oracle 's current licensing is basically per-processor based , regardless of whether you have one server with 4 processors or 4 servers with 1 processor ( other restrictions apply , etc ) .
In the past Oracle has also had no problems implementing licensing like UPU ( Universal Power Unit ) so licenses were based upon fabricated value representing the " power " of the hardware used.. .
e.g. , higher for fault tolerant SMP machines and lesser for x86 machiens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle hasn't had much of an issue with fault tolerance since it's OPS (Oracle Parallel Server) days, or its newer RAC technology (Real Application Clusters).
Oracle's current licensing is basically per-processor based, regardless of whether you have one server with 4 processors or 4 servers with 1 processor (other restrictions apply, etc).
In the past Oracle has also had no problems implementing licensing like UPU (Universal Power Unit) so licenses were based upon fabricated value representing the "power" of the hardware used...
e.g., higher for fault tolerant SMP machines and lesser for x86 machiens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724647</id>
	<title>Re:Grammar failure</title>
	<author>rpmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1247748600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's you're point? Their not going to catch every error. This is a tech bored, abuse of the language is expected.</p><p>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's you 're point ?
Their not going to catch every error .
This is a tech bored , abuse of the language is expected .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's you're point?
Their not going to catch every error.
This is a tech bored, abuse of the language is expected.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28726077</id>
	<title>The U.S. has a department of Justice?</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1247764920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where the f**ck have they been the last few decades?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where the f * * ck have they been the last few decades ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where the f**ck have they been the last few decades?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724095</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL won't die</title>
	<author>segedunum</author>
	<datestamp>1247745060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>MySQL doesn't hurt Microsoft's database ambitions at all. MySQL has basically become the dominant database for web applications simply because it's licensing is cheap and it's cheerful and fast (at one time anyway). However, there is no way at all that MySQL will be allowed to acquire features that will let it compete with Oracle. That is now the sole domain of PostgreSQL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MySQL does n't hurt Microsoft 's database ambitions at all .
MySQL has basically become the dominant database for web applications simply because it 's licensing is cheap and it 's cheerful and fast ( at one time anyway ) .
However , there is no way at all that MySQL will be allowed to acquire features that will let it compete with Oracle .
That is now the sole domain of PostgreSQL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MySQL doesn't hurt Microsoft's database ambitions at all.
MySQL has basically become the dominant database for web applications simply because it's licensing is cheap and it's cheerful and fast (at one time anyway).
However, there is no way at all that MySQL will be allowed to acquire features that will let it compete with Oracle.
That is now the sole domain of PostgreSQL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724817</id>
	<title>38\% of Sun shareholders are fools?</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1247750040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oracle offered way more than Sun's worth.  Take the money and run.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle offered way more than Sun 's worth .
Take the money and run.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle offered way more than Sun's worth.
Take the money and run.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723125</id>
	<title>Re:Sun Microsystems: What are your theories?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247740500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was there in the past few years. Basically, why SUN went south can be summarized as follows:</p><p>- hardware company in a rapidly shrinking margin-wise server market<br>- commodization of software<br>- change of strategy every two months (open source/not open source)<br>- disregard of customers (preparing solutions no one asked for, announcing projects while still on a drawing board - see JavaFX, treating low volume customers as "trash" etc.)<br>- easy going development pace, slow responses to customers bleeding money caused by bugs in SW/HW, a lot of monetary interest in senior managment to outsource parts of the work and profit on it personally<br>- brain drain (I was amazed by the "talent" intake in the past few months), OTOH many great persons have just left the company<br>- old boys network in the company (beware Google)</p><p>Anyway, the feeling at SUN was that Oracle was a better fit than IBM, though the expectation is to have massive layoffs in October.</p><p>Larry is a good friend of Scott, perhaps it's just personal prestige to conquer independent empire with some benefits such as SW/HW stack, all-in-one solutions, Java platform control and patent portfolio, or just another step in the ambitions of Larry to conquer the world. I am not playing golf with either of them...</p><p>In the end, I must emphasize SUN was a really nice company, the ethical standards were higher than anywhere else and the feeling of freedom was awesome. It's especially tragic to see the product of enthusiasm and virtues of so many people in the past to fall into the hands of Oracle...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was there in the past few years .
Basically , why SUN went south can be summarized as follows : - hardware company in a rapidly shrinking margin-wise server market- commodization of software- change of strategy every two months ( open source/not open source ) - disregard of customers ( preparing solutions no one asked for , announcing projects while still on a drawing board - see JavaFX , treating low volume customers as " trash " etc .
) - easy going development pace , slow responses to customers bleeding money caused by bugs in SW/HW , a lot of monetary interest in senior managment to outsource parts of the work and profit on it personally- brain drain ( I was amazed by the " talent " intake in the past few months ) , OTOH many great persons have just left the company- old boys network in the company ( beware Google ) Anyway , the feeling at SUN was that Oracle was a better fit than IBM , though the expectation is to have massive layoffs in October.Larry is a good friend of Scott , perhaps it 's just personal prestige to conquer independent empire with some benefits such as SW/HW stack , all-in-one solutions , Java platform control and patent portfolio , or just another step in the ambitions of Larry to conquer the world .
I am not playing golf with either of them...In the end , I must emphasize SUN was a really nice company , the ethical standards were higher than anywhere else and the feeling of freedom was awesome .
It 's especially tragic to see the product of enthusiasm and virtues of so many people in the past to fall into the hands of Oracle.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was there in the past few years.
Basically, why SUN went south can be summarized as follows:- hardware company in a rapidly shrinking margin-wise server market- commodization of software- change of strategy every two months (open source/not open source)- disregard of customers (preparing solutions no one asked for, announcing projects while still on a drawing board - see JavaFX, treating low volume customers as "trash" etc.
)- easy going development pace, slow responses to customers bleeding money caused by bugs in SW/HW, a lot of monetary interest in senior managment to outsource parts of the work and profit on it personally- brain drain (I was amazed by the "talent" intake in the past few months), OTOH many great persons have just left the company- old boys network in the company (beware Google)Anyway, the feeling at SUN was that Oracle was a better fit than IBM, though the expectation is to have massive layoffs in October.Larry is a good friend of Scott, perhaps it's just personal prestige to conquer independent empire with some benefits such as SW/HW stack, all-in-one solutions, Java platform control and patent portfolio, or just another step in the ambitions of Larry to conquer the world.
I am not playing golf with either of them...In the end, I must emphasize SUN was a really nice company, the ethical standards were higher than anywhere else and the feeling of freedom was awesome.
It's especially tragic to see the product of enthusiasm and virtues of so many people in the past to fall into the hands of Oracle...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722809</id>
	<title>Bye SUN... I will miss you.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247739180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is truly the end of a era. At one time, SUN was the epitome of enterprise class hardware. Now it will be reduced to Larry's little toy.</p><p>To quote netcraft: SUN is dying.</p><p>SUN is dead.</p><p>Thanks, Larry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is truly the end of a era .
At one time , SUN was the epitome of enterprise class hardware .
Now it will be reduced to Larry 's little toy.To quote netcraft : SUN is dying.SUN is dead.Thanks , Larry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is truly the end of a era.
At one time, SUN was the epitome of enterprise class hardware.
Now it will be reduced to Larry's little toy.To quote netcraft: SUN is dying.SUN is dead.Thanks, Larry.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28727957</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL won't die</title>
	<author>GuyWithLag</author>
	<datestamp>1247835960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Enterprise MySQL... crap, I'm going to have support nightmares tonight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Enterprise MySQL... crap , I 'm going to have support nightmares tonight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enterprise MySQL... crap, I'm going to have support nightmares tonight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723373</id>
	<title>That's quite surprising</title>
	<author>kithrup</author>
	<datestamp>1247741700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really would have expected more than 62\% to vote for the acquisition.  Having 38\% abstain or vote against it... I will be surprised if some of the nay-sayers didn't file a lawsuit to prevent it from happening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really would have expected more than 62 \ % to vote for the acquisition .
Having 38 \ % abstain or vote against it... I will be surprised if some of the nay-sayers did n't file a lawsuit to prevent it from happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really would have expected more than 62\% to vote for the acquisition.
Having 38\% abstain or vote against it... I will be surprised if some of the nay-sayers didn't file a lawsuit to prevent it from happening.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725771</id>
	<title>Two clarifications</title>
	<author>cartman</author>
	<datestamp>1247761020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Two things in the article summary require clarification:<blockquote><div><p>62\% of Sun's stockholders voted for the acquisition</p></div></blockquote><p>

First, 62\% refers to the number of shares, and not the number of stockholders as the summary claims. Probably, the 62\% mostly represents 30 or 40 large shareholders, made up of pension funds, stock funds, and rich people.

Second, 62\% refers to the number of outstanding shares, not the number of shares for which there was a vote. Very small shareholders rarely bother to vote their shares and do not vote one way or the other. I doubt very many shareholders voted in opposition to this deal, which would be very silly because Sun's prospects without this deal are very dim.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Two things in the article summary require clarification : 62 \ % of Sun 's stockholders voted for the acquisition First , 62 \ % refers to the number of shares , and not the number of stockholders as the summary claims .
Probably , the 62 \ % mostly represents 30 or 40 large shareholders , made up of pension funds , stock funds , and rich people .
Second , 62 \ % refers to the number of outstanding shares , not the number of shares for which there was a vote .
Very small shareholders rarely bother to vote their shares and do not vote one way or the other .
I doubt very many shareholders voted in opposition to this deal , which would be very silly because Sun 's prospects without this deal are very dim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two things in the article summary require clarification:62\% of Sun's stockholders voted for the acquisition

First, 62\% refers to the number of shares, and not the number of stockholders as the summary claims.
Probably, the 62\% mostly represents 30 or 40 large shareholders, made up of pension funds, stock funds, and rich people.
Second, 62\% refers to the number of outstanding shares, not the number of shares for which there was a vote.
Very small shareholders rarely bother to vote their shares and do not vote one way or the other.
I doubt very many shareholders voted in opposition to this deal, which would be very silly because Sun's prospects without this deal are very dim.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723423</id>
	<title>Re:wait a minute</title>
	<author>tnk1</author>
	<datestamp>1247741940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The buying was de facto, but not official yet.  To buy a public company, what you are really doing is buying out the shareholders, but the Board of Directors does most of the work in deciding if it is a good idea for the company.  The board also usually also has representatives from major shareholders on it, so usually their determination also has some built in voting power, if not all of it.</p><p>So, if the Board says they are bought, they pretty much *are* bought.</p><p>However, sometimes there is a significant shareholder rebellion, and hostile takeovers are possible, where the buyer has obtained enough shares to impose their will on the board either through direct vote or through shareholder suits.  You can usually see that coming a mile away, though, because its unlikely that individual shareholders of tiny numbers of share will care about anything more than making the straight money on their stock that they will be getting.  That means a corporate raider or some similar organization would have to appear who buys into the company for it to be a real threat.</p><p>And of course, the government needs to approve for anti-trust reasons.</p><p>In this case, the shareholders' meeting is required, but is likely just a formality.  The government inquiry is actually a bigger threat by far.  The Board's determination in this case is sort of like Election night in the US.  You aren't elected until the Electoral College has met, but it would be fair to say that you're pretty much President-elect as soon as the popular vote totals are tallied and the margin is wide enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The buying was de facto , but not official yet .
To buy a public company , what you are really doing is buying out the shareholders , but the Board of Directors does most of the work in deciding if it is a good idea for the company .
The board also usually also has representatives from major shareholders on it , so usually their determination also has some built in voting power , if not all of it.So , if the Board says they are bought , they pretty much * are * bought.However , sometimes there is a significant shareholder rebellion , and hostile takeovers are possible , where the buyer has obtained enough shares to impose their will on the board either through direct vote or through shareholder suits .
You can usually see that coming a mile away , though , because its unlikely that individual shareholders of tiny numbers of share will care about anything more than making the straight money on their stock that they will be getting .
That means a corporate raider or some similar organization would have to appear who buys into the company for it to be a real threat.And of course , the government needs to approve for anti-trust reasons.In this case , the shareholders ' meeting is required , but is likely just a formality .
The government inquiry is actually a bigger threat by far .
The Board 's determination in this case is sort of like Election night in the US .
You are n't elected until the Electoral College has met , but it would be fair to say that you 're pretty much President-elect as soon as the popular vote totals are tallied and the margin is wide enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The buying was de facto, but not official yet.
To buy a public company, what you are really doing is buying out the shareholders, but the Board of Directors does most of the work in deciding if it is a good idea for the company.
The board also usually also has representatives from major shareholders on it, so usually their determination also has some built in voting power, if not all of it.So, if the Board says they are bought, they pretty much *are* bought.However, sometimes there is a significant shareholder rebellion, and hostile takeovers are possible, where the buyer has obtained enough shares to impose their will on the board either through direct vote or through shareholder suits.
You can usually see that coming a mile away, though, because its unlikely that individual shareholders of tiny numbers of share will care about anything more than making the straight money on their stock that they will be getting.
That means a corporate raider or some similar organization would have to appear who buys into the company for it to be a real threat.And of course, the government needs to approve for anti-trust reasons.In this case, the shareholders' meeting is required, but is likely just a formality.
The government inquiry is actually a bigger threat by far.
The Board's determination in this case is sort of like Election night in the US.
You aren't elected until the Electoral College has met, but it would be fair to say that you're pretty much President-elect as soon as the popular vote totals are tallied and the margin is wide enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723999</id>
	<title>Re:Pedantry</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1247744640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's funny how we confuse democracy with capitalism sometimes.  But "1 person, 1 vote" is a whole different ballgame than "$1, 1 vote."  I am not saying Sun should be a democracy.  But seriously, sit back for a minute and imagine how horrible a capitalist <i>government</i> would be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny how we confuse democracy with capitalism sometimes .
But " 1 person , 1 vote " is a whole different ballgame than " $ 1 , 1 vote .
" I am not saying Sun should be a democracy .
But seriously , sit back for a minute and imagine how horrible a capitalist government would be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny how we confuse democracy with capitalism sometimes.
But "1 person, 1 vote" is a whole different ballgame than "$1, 1 vote.
"  I am not saying Sun should be a democracy.
But seriously, sit back for a minute and imagine how horrible a capitalist government would be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28726911</id>
	<title>Re:Sun Microsystems: What are your theories?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247864100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oracle was selling a fault tolerant clustered database before Google was a company.  It was called Oracle Parallel Server in the 90's and was renamed Real Application Cluster in 2001.   It's one of their most important products.    RAC systems can use commodity hardware running Linux just like Google's server farms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle was selling a fault tolerant clustered database before Google was a company .
It was called Oracle Parallel Server in the 90 's and was renamed Real Application Cluster in 2001 .
It 's one of their most important products .
RAC systems can use commodity hardware running Linux just like Google 's server farms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle was selling a fault tolerant clustered database before Google was a company.
It was called Oracle Parallel Server in the 90's and was renamed Real Application Cluster in 2001.
It's one of their most important products.
RAC systems can use commodity hardware running Linux just like Google's server farms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723951</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL won't die</title>
	<author>iggymanz</author>
	<datestamp>1247744460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>er, what has that got to do with Sun?</htmltext>
<tokenext>er , what has that got to do with Sun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>er, what has that got to do with Sun?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724107</id>
	<title>Re:Sun Microsystems: What are your theories?</title>
	<author>sloth jr</author>
	<datestamp>1247745120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every big proprietary Unix provider faced the same set of issues - comparatively low volume of sales, the resultant premium prices, and much longer evolutionary times for performance increases. Sun's demise was ultimately inevitable, even though they had some interesting technology towards the end (dtrace, zfs, Unified Storage System 7000).

<p>
Sun materially offered nothing that couldn't be achieved cheaper elsewhere, and in this race-to-the-bottom commodity market, made it impossible to compete. Sun kept trying to do what they always did - engineer decent but conservative systems offered at a premium price. Remember, Sun thrived first in a time where the standard Intel offerings couldn't begin to compete with the multi-user scalability of Sun. They either couldn't recognize or couldn't adapt themselves to an evolved future wherein PCs dominated the sweetspot of the price-performance curve.
</p><p>
Oracle bought Sun because buying Innodb didn't kill MySQL. There's nothing else that Oracle can likely do with the other assets of Sun other than sell them for parts. I refuse to believe that Oracle has either the ability or the impetus to continue any of Sun's hardware or non-DB software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every big proprietary Unix provider faced the same set of issues - comparatively low volume of sales , the resultant premium prices , and much longer evolutionary times for performance increases .
Sun 's demise was ultimately inevitable , even though they had some interesting technology towards the end ( dtrace , zfs , Unified Storage System 7000 ) .
Sun materially offered nothing that could n't be achieved cheaper elsewhere , and in this race-to-the-bottom commodity market , made it impossible to compete .
Sun kept trying to do what they always did - engineer decent but conservative systems offered at a premium price .
Remember , Sun thrived first in a time where the standard Intel offerings could n't begin to compete with the multi-user scalability of Sun .
They either could n't recognize or could n't adapt themselves to an evolved future wherein PCs dominated the sweetspot of the price-performance curve .
Oracle bought Sun because buying Innodb did n't kill MySQL .
There 's nothing else that Oracle can likely do with the other assets of Sun other than sell them for parts .
I refuse to believe that Oracle has either the ability or the impetus to continue any of Sun 's hardware or non-DB software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every big proprietary Unix provider faced the same set of issues - comparatively low volume of sales, the resultant premium prices, and much longer evolutionary times for performance increases.
Sun's demise was ultimately inevitable, even though they had some interesting technology towards the end (dtrace, zfs, Unified Storage System 7000).
Sun materially offered nothing that couldn't be achieved cheaper elsewhere, and in this race-to-the-bottom commodity market, made it impossible to compete.
Sun kept trying to do what they always did - engineer decent but conservative systems offered at a premium price.
Remember, Sun thrived first in a time where the standard Intel offerings couldn't begin to compete with the multi-user scalability of Sun.
They either couldn't recognize or couldn't adapt themselves to an evolved future wherein PCs dominated the sweetspot of the price-performance curve.
Oracle bought Sun because buying Innodb didn't kill MySQL.
There's nothing else that Oracle can likely do with the other assets of Sun other than sell them for parts.
I refuse to believe that Oracle has either the ability or the impetus to continue any of Sun's hardware or non-DB software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722863</id>
	<title>wait a minute</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247739360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>wait a minute... wasn't Sun allready bought by Oracle..?? what about Sun's stockholders??</htmltext>
<tokenext>wait a minute... was n't Sun allready bought by Oracle.. ? ?
what about Sun 's stockholders ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wait a minute... wasn't Sun allready bought by Oracle..??
what about Sun's stockholders?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724047</id>
	<title>Re:PostgreSQL anyone?</title>
	<author>iggymanz</author>
	<datestamp>1247744820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>in some ways postgresql is great, but parallel clusters and replication are lagging Oracle by years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>in some ways postgresql is great , but parallel clusters and replication are lagging Oracle by years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in some ways postgresql is great, but parallel clusters and replication are lagging Oracle by years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724459</id>
	<title>"taken from the stock market"</title>
	<author>jsled</author>
	<datestamp>1247747340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>JAVA will be removed from the *NASDAQ-100 composite index*, but will continue to trade as normal until the company is actually acquired.  This point was even mentioned in the press release, so extra points for getting it so (so!) basically wrong.</p><p>(Man,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. just continues to accumulate fail.   I wonder when it'll implode.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>JAVA will be removed from the * NASDAQ-100 composite index * , but will continue to trade as normal until the company is actually acquired .
This point was even mentioned in the press release , so extra points for getting it so ( so !
) basically wrong .
( Man , / .
just continues to accumulate fail .
I wonder when it 'll implode .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JAVA will be removed from the *NASDAQ-100 composite index*, but will continue to trade as normal until the company is actually acquired.
This point was even mentioned in the press release, so extra points for getting it so (so!
) basically wrong.
(Man, /.
just continues to accumulate fail.
I wonder when it'll implode.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28732257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28726791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28727957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28732039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28726911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28727929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28728425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28727351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28728313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28726805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_2055214_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2055214.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28726143
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2055214.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722789
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2055214.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722809
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2055214.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28728313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28732257
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2055214.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724647
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2055214.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28726805
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2055214.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2055214.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724077
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2055214.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723373
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2055214.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722781
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2055214.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723701
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28726791
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28727957
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725785
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28728425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724095
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2055214.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725693
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2055214.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724017
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2055214.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723333
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2055214.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723799
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2055214.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723423
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_2055214.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28722843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28726911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28732039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28723973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28727351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28725959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28724107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_2055214.28727929
</commentlist>
</conversation>
